Should religious clothing be discouraged in public?

[laughing dog]

The OP question is moot for the USA because our pesky Bill of Rights prevents such actions. Moreover, I think the practicality of instituting such a policy (where legal) is simply too onerous - who decides what is religious attire? For example, are "------ loves you" or "______ died for your sins" religious attire? How about "Go Green Bay Packers"?

 

[mojorising]

I think the practicality of instituting such a policy (where legal) is simply too onerous

Are you trolling me with this repeated misrepresentation of my proposal?

As I have already said to Keith more times than I can remember:

We are not banning anything or making policy.

who decides what is religious attire?

We don't need to decide anything because it is just going to be a general suggestion to the religiously backward.

We are going to suggest politely to them that advertising their religious beliefs through their clothing is not conducive to the smooth running of a secular society and it might be better if they kept their religious beliefs more private.

Here are a list of the benefits

1. Other people will not suffer the heinous micro-aggression (ha ha!) of religious people implying that they are excluded from some divine afterlife which in turn implies that they are lesser creatures whose importance can be discounted.
2. It will encourage people to view each other simply as people and not members of rival divine tribes.
3. Religious people will suffer less from the prejudice of others if they do not make such an unnecessary show of their religious allegiance
4. It will help people to begin to view religion as something shameful which it is.
5. It will contribute in a small way to the ultimate demise of religion

 

[laughing dog]

We don't need to decide anything because it is just going to be a general suggestion to the religiously backward.

You vastly over-estimate the number of people who are offended by this "microaggression" and the number of "religiously backward" who will listen, your proposal is as pointless as it is thoughtless.

 

[mojorising]

I honestly don't think it has even occurred to many of these religious folks that advertising their religion appears ugly and culturally backwards to other people.

If we encourage them to see how it looks to other people we could eventually start to win over a few converts and the war on religion will take another small step forwards.

Solidarity brothers.

 

[Brian63]

mojorising,

I can definitely understand and sympathize with your view of wanting to discourage religious promotion via clothing, especially that you are NOT proposing banning it but just making an effort to culturally discourage it. Where I have difficulty is not in that goal, but just the method used to achieve it. Basically, I have trouble picturing myself on *how* to discourage that type of behavior. I do not smoke myself at all and dislike being around those who are, but when somebody near me does pull out a cigarette I will instead tend to just move away, rather than do anything to discourage that person from smoking. Likewise, if someone approaches me with a religious piece of clothing or jewelry, at most I would just quietly move away (even that would be unlikely if they are not verbally evangelizing towards me). I just cannot imagine what specifically I would do or say towards someone with religious clothing, to discourage them from wearing such items, especially if I do not know them at all. So I am open to your good idea, just very unsure about its execution, and so am not comfortable with it at this point.

Brian

 

[mojorising]

Well I imagined the execution would be in the form of polite public information messages in the media encouraging people to consider that there are many people of many other faiths and some of no faith and in the interests of the smooth running of our lovely warm and fluffy secular society we request that religious believers consider those other people when choosing whether to dress in a way that advertises their religious beliefs or whether they might consider choosing to keep religious dress for religious worship ceremonies and choose non-religious clothing for their everyday business.

 

[Brian63]

Well, if someone holds a belief that another person, or even billions of other people throughout history and into the future, are on a path towards some kind of eternal torment and torture, but that they know how to avoid it, I should hope that they make some effort as minor as wearing certain clothing which publicizes their views. If you personally held to the view that you had knowledge that another person that you regularly interact with is going to suffer for all of time, unless they make some particular change in this life of theirs, wouldn't you make an effort to get them to make that change, for their own benefit at least? Publicizing that you hold this knowledge (or at least that you think you hold it) by wearing some specific jewelry or clothing whenever in their presence would actually be doing them a favor, but you would instead be harming them by NOT wearing it.

For people who really do believe in a literal heaven and hell, I find it disturbing that they do not make more of an effort to steer other people towards heaven and away from hell. Since I think neither of those are real in the first place, I am indirectly glad for this situation, but still I do think it speaks poorly of the morality of people who do believe in such fates, and then do little to nothing about it to try and help others. Religion is just so messed up in so many ways.

Brian

 

[mojorising]

Yes, I hear you. To tell you the truth I was not really overly worried about the minutiae of their beliefs and the resultant conditional morality of their warning or not warning other people by signalling to them through their clothing about the fictional doom that may be awaiting them.... good point though...!

 

[Kharakov]

Religious women should not wear clothing around me. Besides that, I encourage them to wear whatever they want.

 

[4321lynx]

Well, if someone holds a belief that another person, or even billions of other people throughout history and into the future, are on a path towards some kind of eternal torment and torture, but that they know how to avoid it, I should hope that they make some effort as minor as wearing certain clothing which publicizes their views. If you personally held to the view that you had knowledge that another person that you regularly interact with is going to suffer for all of time, unless they make some particular change in this life of theirs, wouldn't you make an effort to get them to make that change, for their own benefit at least? Publicizing that you hold this knowledge (or at least that you think you hold it) by wearing some specific jewelry or clothing whenever in their presence would actually be doing them a favor, but you would instead be harming them by NOT wearing it.

For people who really do believe in a literal heaven and hell, I find it disturbing that they do not make more of an effort to steer other people towards heaven and away from hell. Since I think neither of those are real in the first place, I am indirectly glad for this situation, but still I do think it speaks poorly of the morality of people who do believe in such fates, and then do little to nothing about it to try and help others. Religion is just so messed up in so many ways.
Brian

I agree with you in what you say, with one proviso.
Religion is a human construct and is only as messed up as the human race is. So maybe we should forgive them for not helping us, for they know not what they do. (I may be plagiarising some human's words here. )

As far as religious clothing or jewellry goes, mojorising should probably strive to make it compulsory like the Nazis did to the Jews, if he can face the opprobium that would result. Then, "fighting for liberty", many more might give up the habit (pun intended) than by being encouraged in the ways he suggests.

 

[Underseer]

You need a far better reason than 'it's annoying' to justify any kind of concerted effort to get people to stop wearing religious clothing and ornaments.

This.

A thousand times, this.

If we are going to use society and/or the law to tell people what they can or cannot wear, the reason has to be something better than "it annoys me."

 

[mojorising]

As far as religious clothing or jewellry goes, mojorising should probably strive to make it compulsory like the Nazis did to the Jews

I said discourage. You say nazi/compulsory and then attack the argument. It is like the invasion of the zombie strawman army on this thread.

If we are going to use society and/or the law to tell people what they can or cannot wear, the reason has to be something better than "it annoys me."

Nobody is telling people anything. I am proposing that religious clothing be discouraged by letting people know that progressive societies view the advertising of religion through clothing as ugly and culturally backward. They may also reduce the amount of prejudice they encounter in life if they don't make such a show of advertising their religion.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Don't know if this has been done before but anyway...

I find something annoying about people advertising their religious beliefs in public. Religious belief should be private matter between individuals and their 'gods'.

Common examples are the jewish skull cap, the turban and the various islamic female dress codes. Some christians wear crosses round their necks although this is more discreet than the other examples.

Obviously in more culturally backwards countries religious dress is still common but should people not be actively discouraged from advertising their religious beliefs in a progressive secular society?

Religious leaders such as priests and rabbis and imams would have to get a pass since it is more their job than a simple belief but what is the purpose of lay believers advertising which tribe they belong to?

The standard counter argument you hear from these people is 'why should I be ashamed of my religious beliefs?' but that argument does not wash. Not feeling the need to advertise beliefs does not imply that you are ashamed of them.

Advertising your beliefs also seems to suggest that you want people to know your religious beliefs before they interact with you but why? Do they expect to be treated differently?

If they have dietary requirements then they can be dealt with verbally when required. They do not need to be communicated by semaphore from a distance of 100 meteres.

If females need to cover their hair then there are many ways this can be done without making a religious pantomime out of it.

Removing religiously identifying dress would reduce friction between religious factions which is practical benefit of discouraging this tribalism but the more general principle of religion being a private matter is really what I am thinking about with this suggestion.

I too am against freedom. It's wrong I say. WRONG. WTF is the deal with hipsters. Get a fucking shave!!! Skinny jeans... what's up with that? Socks in sandals. The outrage. I say ban anybody not dressing exactly the same way as I am. BAN! Where are the fashion police when we need them

 

[Brian63]

If some individual person went around wearing a shirt with a message that read “God exists, everyone who does not believe the same can go to hell” or something similar, we would probably find that disappointing. If that instead was a popular shirt very commonly worn and a message very commonly promoted by our culture at large (not just some individual), then we who disbelieved in it would be more inclined to actively oppose it even. So I do not see why so many people in this thread are opposed to mojorising’s sentiment, which is basically the same. He is not proposing banning and making it illegal to wear such clothing, just that those of us who are opposed to the message outwardly oppose the message, which will help ourselves and everyone else who (privately) shares our views on it. I myself do support the aim with this, just do not think it would work in its application unfortunately. So many others here seem to be confused about and be opposed to even the goal of the project though. If somebody wears a shirt with a message that is outwardly racist, sexist, etc. instead of religiously discriminatory, would you still be opposed to people actively disputing it?

Brian

 

[DrZoidberg]

Why would you champion the 'rights' of someone to advertise their religious allegiance in a primitive display of tribalism causing disharmony and friction.

I don't think this is a human right in the modern secular western world. It is ugly and uncultured but in our magnanimity we continue to tolerate it - for the time being at least.

I did not realise anybody was championing them.

I thought I was proposing actively countering them and you were neutral to their behaviour.

Are you saying you actively support the advertising of religious beliefs and would like to see it encouraged?

Free expression? I'd champion any rights to wear whatever fucked up clothing they wish. Or no clothes. I'm in favour of public nudity. Don't like it... don't watch. BTW, toleration isn't the same thing as acceptance. You can think something is complete bullshit and still tolerate it. That's where I am with all theist religion. I've the same opinions on Greenpeace and Frankenfood suporters. Do I think they're idiots spreading socially harmful ideas? Totally. Do I think they should be banned? No.

What I want to encourage is free expression. Even if that leads to people expressing shit I may not agree with.

 

[4321lynx]

I said discourage. You say nazi/compulsory and then attack the argument. It is like the invasion of the zombie strawman army on this thread.

You do not understand my drift, so I'll bore you with an explanation.

!. I said that religion (and almost anything associated with it ) is an expression of human nature or some need in humans, implying that it evolved with civilisation and was not, as some here seem to think, the result of a dastardly plot by the Vatican, or Abraham, or Zeus, although it is often used by power groups for their purposes.
2. I implied that human nature also resists external compulsion and change (as far as it can).
3.Therefore, using this second fact and making religious habit and jewels compulsory might assure the change desired by you to be more rapid than simply whining about what annoys you, or me, or whoever.(smile for christs sake, it's a joke)
Got it now? It's not difficult, really it's not.

And given that we (some 15% of the poulation doubters, atheists etc, the exact figures varying from country to country) living in the West are living in democracies we should not expect the other 85% to change to please us.
But if you want, go on trying; just realise that you're not fighting "religion", you are up against human nature.

 

[4321lynx]

Why would you champion the 'rights' of someone to advertise their religious allegiance in a primitive display of tribalism causing disharmony and friction.

I don't think this is a human right in the modern secular western world. It is ugly and uncultured but in our magnanimity we continue to tolerate it - for the time being at least.

I did not realise anybody was championing them.

I thought I was proposing actively countering them and you were neutral to their behaviour.

Are you saying you actively support the advertising of religious beliefs and would like to see it encouraged?

Free expression? I'd champion any rights to wear whatever fucked up clothing they wish. Or no clothes. I'm in favour of public nudity. Don't like it... don't watch. BTW, toleration isn't the same thing as acceptance. You can think something is complete bullshit and still tolerate it. That's where I am with all theist religion. I've the same opinions on Greenpeace and Frankenfood suporters. Do I think they're idiots spreading socially harmful ideas? Totally. Do I think they should be banned? No.

What I want to encourage is free expression. Even if that leads to people expressing shit I may not agree with.

With no limits? People, naked, peeing and shitting and masturbating and fucking in the streets? don't look if you don't like it? Naked unfortunates displaying their cystostomies, colostomies, and festering fistulas of all kinds? Naked perverts with erections ogling naked children and telling the dressed population to strip and get with it? Don't look and don't listen if you don't like it?

It's bad enough here, where people like you and I (you more than I ) get in other people's faces, and sometimes speak before they think. Free expressions be damned. Moderation in all or most things is better.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Free expression? I'd champion any rights to wear whatever fucked up clothing they wish. Or no clothes. I'm in favour of public nudity. Don't like it... don't watch. BTW, toleration isn't the same thing as acceptance. You can think something is complete bullshit and still tolerate it. That's where I am with all theist religion. I've the same opinions on Greenpeace and Frankenfood suporters. Do I think they're idiots spreading socially harmful ideas? Totally. Do I think they should be banned? No.

What I want to encourage is free expression. Even if that leads to people expressing shit I may not agree with.

With no limits? People, naked, peeing and shitting and masturbating and fucking in the streets? don't look if you don't like it? Naked unfortunates displaying their cystostomies, colostomies, and festering fistulas of all kinds? Naked perverts with erections ogling naked children and telling the dressed population to strip and get with it? Don't look and don't listen if you don't like it?

It's bad enough here, where people like you and I (you more than I ) get in other people's faces, and sometimes speak before they think. Free expressions be damned. Moderation in all or most things is better.

This response is like people equating gay marriage with having to accept bestiality and pedophilia. Erm... no. These are different activities.

Sweden has a long history of nudism. It's popular in these parts. Swedes aren't as sensitive about nakedness as other places. Just being naked isn't in itself offensive. There's ways to be naked in public where you're not in anybodies face about it. It's hard to explain and it can be subtle differences. But we've got plenty of nudist beaches in Sweden. Places where people take their whole family. No problem. Sweden has a long tradition of steam bathing in a sauna. We always do it nude. It's a thing. Men and women are mixed, young and old. An entire family. All in their birthday suit (and then going for a swim through a hole in the ice). The trick is knowing the difference between sexualised nudity and non-sexualised nudity. And if you live in a culture where it's not normal for men and women to get along buck naked in a non-sexualised fashion I can understand why you might find such an activity hard to believe. Me... I have no problems telling the difference.

 

[4321lynx]

With no limits? People, naked, peeing and shitting and masturbating and fucking in the streets? don't look if you don't like it? Naked unfortunates displaying their cystostomies, colostomies, and festering fistulas of all kinds? Naked perverts with erections ogling naked children and telling the dressed population to strip and get with it? Don't look and don't listen if you don't like it?

It's bad enough here, where people like you and I (you more than I ) get in other people's faces, and sometimes speak before they think. Free expressions be damned. Moderation in all or most things is better.

This response is like people equating gay marriage with having to accept bestiality and pedophilia. Erm... no. These are different activities.

Sweden has a long history of nudism. It's popular in these parts. Swedes aren't as sensitive about nakedness as other places. Just being naked isn't in itself offensive. There's ways to be naked in public where you're not in anybodies face about it. It's hard to explain and it can be subtle differences. But we've got plenty of nudist beaches in Sweden. Places where people take their whole family. No problem. Sweden has a long tradition of steam bathing in a sauna. We always do it nude. It's a thing. Men and women are mixed, young and old. An entire family. All in their birthday suit (and then going for a swim through a hole in the ice). The trick is knowing the difference between sexualised nudity and non-sexualised nudity. And if you live in a culture where it's not normal for men and women to get along buck naked in a non-sexualised fashion I can understand why you might find such an activity hard to believe. Me... I have no problems telling the difference.

It may surprise you that I knew that, and also knew that in Finland this was the norm well before WW I. Don't know if it was Finnish Finns, or Swedish Finns, or both, that practiced this.

But you have not answered my query. No limits?

In your answer you automatically placed limits on where nudity is OK: nude beaches or all beaches, and saunas.
In Finland at the start of the 20th century, you could allso meet whole families, naked, in the village streets on their way to and from the saunas, though many had their saunas on their own property.

 

[mojorising]

I said that religion (and almost anything associated with it ) is an expression of human nature or some need in humans, implying that it evolved with civilisation and was not, as some here seem to think, the result of a dastardly plot by the Vatican, or Abraham, or Zeus

Yes religious belief is a prominent feature of all human civilisations. I think giving it 'evolutionary' status or labels is going a bit far. It certainly grew up with human culture and provided a useful framework for early attempts at specifications of morality, legal frameworks, 'explanations' of the mysteries of life and death etc.

I would say, in light of the advanced state of civilisation now that it is redundant and it is time to put it away (certainly in the west, which is ahead of the global moral curve). I think most folk understand now that morality comes from human consciousness. It is an evolved feature and we democratically agree on the details of its nature and on which bits are worthy of codifying as laws (which changes over time and place).

I am happy to go on patronising the presence of religion since I know it will take time to die out but I don't see much harm in some gentle encouragement in the right direction.

I think religion has to be tolerated as many people still see it as an essential part of their lives but I think that tolerance can be slowly reduced in scope as time goes by and that gentle discouragement of religious practice in general is social progress.

One step that I see as achievable, even in today's early stages of the abandonment of religion, is the reduction in the public visibility of religion. I don't think it is too early in the project to start encouraging religion to be seen as something that should be kept more private than it once was (with a view to it eventually being seen as embarrassing).

Dressing religiously in public should be gently discouraged. We could do it with information campaigns and maybe encouragement of humour directed at the idea of people advertising their religious beliefs through clothing.

The projects is for the progress of the human species and medicine does not always taste nice to everybody.